Morrow County group weighs revolving loan fund and grants to help domestic well owners

A working group organized by the Morrow County Clean Water Consortium on Nov. 1 considered creating a revolving loan or grant program to help domestic well owners pay for well repairs, deepening, or treatment systems.

Nick Decody of Decody Consulting told the consortium the state’s WRD well grant program is focused on water quantity — proving a well is dry or declining — and “not only is it not open right now, but they just don't care about water quality. They only care about water quantity,” he said. Decody said that reality makes the WRD program a poor direct fit for the water-quality problems many domestic well owners face.

Why it matters: Consortium members said many households in unincorporated parts of Morrow County rely on private wells and that remediation options vary widely in cost and complexity. The consortium must choose between outright grants, secured loans (liens on property), and low-interest revolving loans that would be repaid and recycled.

GSI Water Solutions consultant Ronan Negoria described the technical work under way to classify wells and identify which homes could use point-of‑use treatment, which could be served by small shared systems, and which would need deeper wells. Negoria said the project team can provide preliminary inventory and groupings by January and a final deliverable by next summer.

The math: Participants and consultants ran ballpark numbers. Caleb Lay, citing Oregon Health Authority testing, said 667 private wells in Morrow County have been tested and 296 registered nitrate results over 10 mg/L; after excluding a clustered area (West Glen), Lay estimated about 194 contaminated wells outside that cluster. At an illustrative cost of about $30,000 per household to remediate certain wells, tackling 125 properties would require roughly $3 million in capital, Decody said.

Partnerships and fees: Decody reported talks with a nonprofit loan administrator (identified in meeting notes as GEODC) that could underwrite loans but would charge an administration fee in the 10–15% range. “They have a loan officer ... very well experienced in a lot of different kinds of loans and grants for private homeowners,” Decody said; he cautioned that the admin fee and any requirements for construction loan certification could increase program complexity.

Funding path and timing: The group discussed local capital, state lottery bonds, and legislative requests as potential sources. Decody recommended a phased approach: define a pilot scope (for example, 75–200 homes), solidify administration agreements or an MOU with a nonprofit administrator, and then pursue a legislative ask in the January–February session window. Members noted that state lottery bond proceeds typically are not available immediately (bonds sold after the appropriation process), so local or private seed funding could be needed to begin implementation.

Community uptake and risk: Board members raised concerns about homeowner willingness to accept secured loans or long payback terms and suggested a sliding scale of options (grants targeted to lowest incomes, low‑interest loans for others). The consultants emphasized the need to pair any deepening work with treatment where appropriate because drilling deeper does not guarantee long‑term water quality improvements.

Next steps: The consortium agreed to wait for GSI’s preliminary estimates (expected late January), to refine the pilot scope, and to pursue partner conversations and MOU terms with potential administrators before making a formal legislative request.

The consortium did not take a formal vote on program design at the Nov. 1 meeting; members directed staff and consultants to return in early 2026 with more detailed cost estimates and program design options.